Alan Ingalls

Dangerous Weapons

I have refrained from weighing in on the gun control issue up to this point, but I can wait no longer. It is high time we got dangerous weapons off the street. Last June a 63-year-old woman in Lima, OH, plowed her car into a crowd hurting thirty people. Some news sources claim it was an accident. In September an angry Houston man drove his vehicle into a crowd outside a sports bar. Given the fact that he backed up and hit one woman a second time, one may suppose that his behavior was deliberate. In August last year a man in Los Angeles ran over eleven people at an elementary school including nine children. Clearly, motor vehicles were created for the sole purpose of killing and maiming large numbers of people at a time.

This is not an American problem alone, but an international crisis which must eventually be addressed world-wide. In December in Beijing an angry man rammed his vehicle into a group of students, injuring thirteen. Motor vehicles even make it possible for people to drive while intoxicated. A man was charged last year with killing four and injuring others in an incident in Cleveland when he ran his car into a crowd at a street fair while he was intoxicated. If he had been riding a bicycle, none of this would have happened.

I haven’t even mentioned the thousands of rabbits, squirrels, and possums that are killed or crippled each year by the wanton destruction of these incredible weapons. And these are just a few of the thousands of cases. Just Google “Drive car into crowd” and you’ll see what I mean. The evidence is overwhelming. We must act quickly and soon to eliminate all motor vehicles. And if you think this argument is crazy, just take a look the ones being used by those who wish to void the second amendment and confiscate all firearms from the millions of quiet, law-abiding citizens who own firearms for sport or self-defense. Let’s look for real answers to the problem of violence in our society.

Like this:

Related

2 Responses

I see the irony that your using and I get it. The real problem is the people not the things that they use that are the problem.

But I will say that there is a real problem with the irony you present. You say that “motor vehicles were created for the sole purpose of killing and maiming large numbers of people at a time.” This is where your analogy goes ff track. For you see guns actually are DESIGNED for this purpose. There are billions of dollars spent every year to build better guns. What could possibly make a better gun except that it kills better.

I’m not a proponent of taking something away because a few abuse the privilege. But at some point we as a society have to come together and say that the needs of the few outweigh the desires of the many.

Again the real problem is with the people who commit these heinous acts. Taking away their guns wont stop them from hurting people, but it may keep them from hurting so many people (at one time). Have you ever heard of someone stabbing 30 people to death in a rampage? I haven’t.

Jimmy, I’m glad you understood the irony. These are the very arguments used against guns and applied to anything else they are ludicrous. I agree wholeheartedly with your statement that “the real problem is with the people who commit these heinous acts.” We have shamefully neglected the mentally ill in our society—those who are potentially violent and those who are not. The people who commit such acts often plan for weeks or months and give numerous indications of their intentions, but well-meaning people fail to intervene. And our justice system has utterly failed to deal with violent, predatory criminals who don’t seek to make a name for themselves by opening fire in a school or a mall, but nonetheless kill or rape again and again with impunity.

What seems totally illogical to me is that your solution is then to take away guns. You say that you are not in favor “of taking something away because a few abuse the privilege,” and then seem to say that that is what we need to do for “the needs of the few.” That assumes that the only two options are to let anyone have guns or let no one have guns.

You suggest that that my analogy breaks down because “guns actually are DESIGNED for this purpose”—in the context of my argument you are suggesting that the sole purpose of guns is to kill large numbers of people at one time. That is simply false. It is true that guns are designed to kill. Hunters, by definition, kill. Animals. People who own weapons for self-defense do so to defend their homes against predatory criminals who would not hesitate to kill them, and may in fact be invading their homes with the intent to kill them. They are certainly not holding their weapons with the intent to kill as many people as they can. Most, if not all, who own weapons for self-defense hope and pray that they never have to use them for that purpose. Such a hyperbole is outrageous.

I must admit that I know of no case where someone killed 30 people with a knife “in a rampage,” but your question contains two flaws. First, a knife, by its very nature, is inferior as a weapon to a gun. Who would even attempt such a thing? People with such a grudge against society don’t choose a knife—they use a gun or a truck full of fertilizer and diesel fuel or a jumbo jet. As the number of potential weapons is very large, eliminating guns won’t solve the problem. Consider the poison-gas attacks on the Japanese subway system a few years ago. Societies which allow no guns at all still have terrorist attacks. And second, few mass murderers (probably none) simply “go on a rampage’ on a whim. Weeks or months after such a “rampage” it always seems to come out that the killer has simmered with anger for years, and planned and prepared for his assault for weeks or even months. And people around the killer knew.

It is time we deal with the real problems. We need to ensure that violent criminals never get the opportunity to commit another violent crime. We need to get treatment for our mentally ill, ensure that they cannot purchase weapons, and ensure that they continue taking the medications that allow them to function in society. Years ago it was commonplace for family and friends after a suicide to say “he was making jokes about ending it all, but I never thought he’d do it.” We now take comments or jokes about suicide seriously and seek help for the person. We need to train our society to recognize the significant signs that a person is contemplating mass murder and seek help. (On a side note, violent video games or movies may not be the cause of such behavior, but I suspect that abnormal obsessions with such “entertainment” may be a symptom of deeper problems that need to be addressed.) The media, I think, needs to stop sensationalizing attacks. There’s no question of 1st Amendment rights here or censoring the press. The media already withholds some information voluntarily for the sake of the victims—some will not publish the names of minors who are the victims of rape or incest. It’s time for them to take a look at their policies and see what they can do to help.

Solving these problems won’t be easy. It will require great care to ensure that any solutions don’t rob the liberties of the innocent. But it must be done. And we will never stop all the attacks. Someone somewhere with a long-held grudge or a “righteous cause” will manage to pull off a mass attack. He will attack a soft target to ensure the success of his “mission.” (No target in our country today is softer than our schools and killing children is sure to enflame outrage to gain publicity for the attacker’s cause.) It is time to stop demonizing the hammer for striking the nail.

Now, Jimmy, I’ve approved your post and have responded to it, but please understand that this was never intended to be an open debate on the subject. It was an oversight on my part that the commenting feature was not turned off. There will be no more comments to this post. There are plenty of other forums designed for this debate. Thank you for your interest in my post and your concern for this subject, which I most certainly share, even if we do not completely agree on the solution.